Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

AMSB in Truly Confining Gauge Theories

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking selects the ADS branch as the global vacuum in each t-confining theory, with specific discrete symmetry breaking patterns that can be compared with lattice simulations.

desk verdict A solid AMSB extension to t-confining theories with a clean analytic SU(6) case, but the general-k claims in Table 2 outrun the evidence and the numerics need more detail. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06093 v1 pith:UA3UOHLZ submitted 2026-08-06 hep-th hep-ph

Riku Ishikawa , Hitoshi Murayama , Shota Saito This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords anomaly-mediatedsupersymmetrybreakingt-confininggaugetheoriestrulyconfiningADSsuperpotentialglobalsymmetrydiscreteanomalymatchinglatticetheorypredictionsN=1
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

With a tiny amount of anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking, the ground state of every truly confining (t-confining) gauge theory moves to the branch with a non-zero Affleck–Dine–Seiberg superpotential, and the global symmetry breaks in a specific, computable pattern. For the four families studied here, the patterns are $Z_6 \to Z_2$, $Z_{2k-2} \to Z_2$, $Z_{4k-4} \to Z_2$, and $Z_{16} \times SU(2) \to SO(2)$. These differ from the symmetry breaking of the supersymmetric vacua, so the $m=0$ and $m\ll\Lambda$ ground states are separated by a phase transition. The paper's point is that these near-supersymmetric results can be promoted to predictions for non-supersymmetric lattice gauge theories, because the order parameters, such as $\mathrm{tr}(\psi_A^4)$, survive in the non-SUSY limit. The caveat is that the promotion depends on a no-phase-transition crossover between the small- and large-breaking regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the AMSB-deformed scalar potential on the multi-branch moduli space of a t-confining theory. The branches are labeled by choices of sign in the Affleck–Dine–Seiberg superpotential, and when all signs are equal the superpotential vanishes. AMSB adds the F-term contribution $V_{\rm AMSB}=m(\sum_i a_i \, \partial W/\partial a_i - 3W)+\mathrm{c.c.}$, which lifts the degeneracy between branches. On ADS branches the minima sit at field values of order $(\Lambda^{p}/m)^{1/q}\gg\Lambda$, so the calculation with a near-canonical Kähler potential is under control, and the vacuum energy is deeper by powers of $\Lambda/m$ than the $W=0$ branch, whose potential comes only from the non-canonical Kähler potential. Discrete anomaly matching of the surviving symmetry then verifies that the broken-symmetry vacuum has no massless composite fermions.

What would settle it

A lattice simulation of the non-supersymmetric $SU(6)$ gauge theory with a single rank-three antisymmetric Weyl fermion (theory D) that measures the expectation value of $\mathrm{tr}(\psi_A^4)$ would settle the central claim: if the $Z_6$ symmetry does not break to $Z_2$, or if the four-fermion condensate vanishes, the AMSB prediction for that theory fails. Equally decisive would be detecting a phase transition along the AMSB interpolation between $m\ll\Lambda$ and $m\gg\Lambda$, which would sever the connection to non-SUSY theories.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that under AMSB with $m\ll\Lambda$, each t-confining theory's global minimum lies on an ADS-superpotential branch, never on the $W=0$ branch, and the vacuum is a single configuration, up to discrete identifications, that breaks the global symmetry exactly as in Table 2: $Z_6 \to Z_2$ for $SU(6)+A_{ijk}$, $Z_{2k-2} \to Z_2$ for $Sp(k)+A$, $Z_{4k-4} \to Z_2$ for $SU(2k)+A+\tilde A$, and $Z_{16}\times SU(2)\to SO(2)$ for $Spin(12)+2S$. The branch with $W=0$ gives only a shallower minimum through AMSB acting on the non-canonical Kähler potential, and its exact location is not computable, but it is never the global minimum. The symmetry breaking is visible in gauge-invariant composite operators that survive in the non-SUSY limit, for example $\mathrm{tr}(\psi_A^4)$ for theory (D), so the predictions are in principle lattice-checkable, except for the pseudoreal chiral $Sp(k)+A$ case.

Load-bearing premise

Everything the paper says about non-supersymmetric theories assumes that slowly turning off supersymmetry changes the vacuum smoothly, without a sudden phase transition; the paper flags this assumption itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On each of the four t-confining theories, the AMSB ground state breaks the discrete global symmetry to a $Z_2$ subgroup, or to $SO(2)$ in the $Spin(12)$ case, independent of $k$ in the $Sp(k)$ and $SU(2k)$ families.
  • The SUSY vacuum is not continuously approached as $m\to 0$: the ground state jumps from the $W=0$ branch to an ADS branch, so there is a first-order phase transition between the $m=0$ and $m\ll\Lambda$ vacua.
  • The order parameters that carry the breaking, such as $\mathrm{tr}(\psi_A^4)$, are fermionic composites that survive when superpartners decouple, so lattice simulations can in principle check them, except for the pseudoreal chiral $Sp(k)+A$ case.
  • If the no-phase-transition premise holds, the patterns in Table 2 are concrete predictions for the ground states of non-SUSY t-confining gauge theories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One can test the paper's branch-selection rule, that global minima sit on branches with $|n_+ - n_-|$ minimized, by applying the same AMSB analysis to t-confining families not covered here or to s-confining theories, where a similar branch competition may arise.
  • A lattice measurement that finds a different symmetry-breaking pattern would locate where the $m\ll\Lambda$ to $m\gg\Lambda$ continuity assumption fails, rather than merely refuting the near-SUSY calculation.
  • The paper's treatment of the $W=0$ branch leaves the vacuum location sensitive to the unknown Kähler metric; a lattice or numerical result for one of these theories could constrain the interpolating Kähler potential introduced in Appendix A.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies N=1 supersymmetric t-confining gauge theories deformed by small anomaly mediation (AMSB) in the regime m << Lambda. It combines the existing classification of t-confining theories with the AMSB effective potential to determine which branch of the moduli space becomes the global minimum and which global symmetries are spontaneously broken. The claimed results are: Z6 -> Z2 for SU(6) with a rank-three antisymmetric tensor (treated analytically), Z_{2k-2} -> Z2 for Sp(k) with an antisymmetric tensor, Z_{4k-4} -> Z2 for SU(2k) with antisymmetric tensor plus conjugate, and Z16 x SU(2) -> SO(2) for Spin(12) with two spinors (treated numerically for k=3,4,5 and for Spin(12)). The paper further proposes gauge-invariant order parameters, such as tr(psi_A^4) for SU(6), that survive in the non-SUSY limit and could in principle be compared with lattice simulations, except in the pseudoreal chiral case. The paper explicitly acknowledges that this comparison requires the small-AMSB and large-AMSB vacua to be continuously connected with no phase transition, an assumption taken from [7] and challenged by [28].

Significance. The paper has a clear and useful idea: use the exact, UV-insensitive nature of AMSB to extract symmetry-breaking patterns of strongly coupled t-confining theories, and translate them into falsifiable predictions for non-supersymmetric lattice theories. The SU(6) analysis is analytic and self-contained, and the proposed order parameters are concrete and testable in principle. The explicit anomaly checks for the unbroken symmetries add support to the vacuum structure. However, the general-k entries in Table 2 are extrapolations from k=3,4,5 and are described in the text as conjectures, while the advertised connection to non-SUSY lattice theories rests on a crossover assumption that the paper itself flags as unproven. The significance is therefore conditional: if the conjectures and the crossover are correct, the paper gives a compact and valuable map of symmetry breaking across four classes of t-confining theories.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 4, 5 and Table 2] The general-k entries in Table 2 are not established results. Sec. 4 states 'we can conjecture which branch contains the minimum for general k' and Sec. 5 states 'we can also conjecture the pattern of symmetry breaking for general k', yet Table 2 presents Z_{2k-2} -> Z2 and Z_{4k-4} -> Z2 as summary results without a conjecture label. The support is numerical minimization only for k=3,4,5, and the extrapolation relies on an observed pairing pattern (opposite-sign pairs plus a zero for odd k) for which no proof for k>=6 is given. If the pairing or the |n+-n-|-minimizing branch selection fails for some k, the residual symmetry could be larger than Z2. The paper should either provide a proof of the conjecture or clearly mark the general-k entries as conjectural in both Table 2 and the abstract.
  2. [Sec. 7] The central claim that the AMSB results describe non-supersymmetric t-confining theories depends on the assumption that the m<<Lambda and m>>Lambda vacua are continuously connected with no phase transition. The paper itself says in Sec. 7, 'If no phase transition occurs, our results give predictions for the symmetry breaking patterns of non-SUSY t-confining theories,' and the continuity premise is explicitly challenged by [28]. This is not a presentation issue but a load-bearing assumption: if the crossover fails, the computed patterns describe only the near-SUSY theory and do not constrain the lattice theories advertised in the abstract. The authors should either present a concrete diagnostic that could test the absence of a phase transition in the lattice theories, or substantially soften the claimed connection to non-SUSY dynamics.
  3. [Secs. 4, 5, 6] The numerical minimization that determines the global minima for Sp(k), SU(2k), and Spin(12) is not documented in a reproducible way. The text reports representative moduli values and values of Vmin, but gives no algorithm, no convergence criterion, no search strategy over the discrete sign branches, and no code or ancillary data. This matters because the claimed global minima select the symmetry breaking pattern, and for Spin(12) the minimization is over a relatively high-dimensional moduli space with several discrete branches. At minimum, the authors should specify the numerical method, the accuracy to which the reported minima are known, and how they verified that no other branch or local minimum is deeper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical slips, for example 'confininig' and 'priciple' in the abstract, 'sence' in Sec. 2, 'obrtained' in Sec. 4, 'essencially' and 'spaned' in Sec. 5, 'minimun' in Sec. 5, and 'inifininty' in App. A. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Secs. 3 and 4] The treatment of the precise global discrete symmetry is inconsistent across examples: footnotes 3 and 4 say the true symmetry is Z3 or Z_{k-1} because a Z2 subgroup is identified with the center, while the body continues to use Z6 or Z_{2k-2}. The notation should be made uniform and the physical symmetry and the number of distinct vacua should be stated consistently.
  3. [Secs. 4-6] The figures show the potential along a single ray through a minimum, but they do not indicate the direction in moduli space or whether other directions were scanned. Plotting one slice is insufficient to demonstrate that a point is a local minimum; the numerical method described in the major comments should also guarantee this.
  4. [Sec. 7 and Abstract] The abstract and Sec. 7 present the symmetry-breaking patterns as applicable to non-supersymmetric theories while the body repeatedly qualifies the general-k statements as conjectures and the crossover as an assumption. The abstract should be reworded to reflect these caveats.
  5. [App. A] The model Kähler potential in Eq. (A.6) is an interpolation ansatz, not a derivation; the text correctly says the result is sensitive to the interpolating function. This should be stated in the main text as well, so that readers do not mistake the W=0 branch discussion for a first-principles analysis.
  6. [References] References [3] and [7] are cited as arXiv identifiers; if published versions are available, they should be updated to the journal references.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: the AMSB symmetry-breaking patterns follow from explicit potential minimization; the only load-bearing self-citation is the explicitly conditional crossover premise [7] used to reach non-SUSY lattice predictions.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1 (Introduction) and Sec. 7 (Discussion); see also [7]]
    "At least for QCD-like theories, there is an ample evidence that the near SUSY limit m≪Λ and non-SUSY limit m≫Λ are continuously connected as a cross over without a phase transition [7]. ... If no phase transition occurs, our results give predictions for the symmetry breaking patterns of non-SUSY t-confining theories."

    The advertised bridge from the computed m≪Λ vacua to non-SUSY lattice-testable predictions is not derived in this paper; it is imported from [7], whose authors include one of the present authors. The paper itself acknowledges the competing view [28] and makes the prediction conditional on the crossover. Thus the non-SUSY claim is supported by a same-author citation rather than by an independent calculation. This does not infect the m≪Λ AMSB minimization, which is obtained from explicit scalar potentials, so the circularity is limited and explicitly flagged.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: for theory (D) the AMSB potential (3.5) is minimized analytically, and for theories (E), (F), and (G) the potentials (4.4), (5.4), and (6.5) are minimized numerically for k=3,4,5 and for Spin(12). The resulting residual symmetries, e.g. (4.8), (4.10), (4.12), (5.8), (5.10), (5.12), and (6.9), are read off from the moduli values and are not imposed by the input. They differ from the SUSY column of Table 2 (for example Z_{2k−2}→Z_{k−1} in SUSY versus Z_{2k−2}→Z_2 with AMSB), so the AMSB result is not the input renamed. No parameter is fitted to the claimed breaking pattern, and no order parameter is defined as the quantity being predicted. The general-k entries for (E) and (F) are explicitly labeled conjectures in Secs. 4 and 5, extrapolated from k=3,4,5; this is a support/rigor limitation, not circularity. The self-citations [3], [6], [7], [10], [11], and [25] provide classification, branch structure, applied AMSB methodology, and the crossover premise; the crossover [7] is load-bearing for the non-SUSY lattice statement but is made conditional by the paper itself, which also cites the challenge [28]. I therefore find no definitional or fitted-input circularity, and assign a low score reflecting only the flagged, conditional self-citation burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim inherits unproved inputs from the literature and from the authors' earlier work: the t-confinement classification, the effective superpotentials, the UV-insensitive AMSB formula, the canonical-Kähler approximation at minima, and the crossover to the non-SUSY regime. No new entities or fitted constants are introduced; m and Lambda are physical scales, and the toy Kähler constants in App. A are illustrative only.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The t-confinement classification and effective superpotentials of [3] are correct.
    Section 2 and Secs. 3-6 begin with these superpotentials, e.g. Eqs. (3.3), (4.2), (5.2), and (6.3).
  • domain assumption AMSB is UV-insensitive and the scalar potential Eq. (2.6) is valid in the m much less than Lambda regime.
    Taken from [4,5,6]; the entire analysis proceeds from this formula.
  • domain assumption At the AMSB minima on ADS branches the Kähler potential is approximately canonical, so inverse Kähler corrections are negligible.
    Assumed in Secs. 3-6 based on large moduli values a_min ~ Lambda (Lambda/m)^{...} much greater than Lambda.
  • domain assumption The small-AMSB vacuum is continuously connected to the non-SUSY vacuum with no phase transition.
    Needed for the lattice comparison; taken from [7], with [28] cited as a challenge.
  • domain assumption After constituent scalars receive AMSB masses, massless composite fermions cannot match all anomalies, so symmetry must break.
    Used to argue that the W=0 branch minimum is away from the origin, e.g. Secs. 4-6 and App. A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AMSB in Truly Confining Gauge Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UA3UOHLZ

@misc{pith2026260806093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AMSB in Truly Confining Gauge Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UA3UOHLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06093}
}
abstract

We study deformation of supersymmetric $t$-confining (truly confininig) gauge theories with small anomaly mediation of supersymmetry breaking. We identify breaking pattern of global symmetries in the theories. These results can be compared in priciple to lattice simulation of non-supersymmetric theories (except for one of the cases where the theory is pseudoreal and chiral).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Dine and Y

    M. Dine and Y. Yu,Challenges to Obtaining Results for Real QCD from SUSY QCD, 2205.00115

    arXiv

  2. [7]

    Kondo, H

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama and B. Noether,Near-SUSY to non-SUSY crossover,Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) 114021 [2505.18138]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett,Generalized Global Symmetries,JHEP 02(2015) 172 [1412.5148]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [2]

    Holland, P

    K. Holland, P. Minkowski, M. Pepe and U.J. Wiese,Exceptional confinement in G(2) gauge theory,Nucl. Phys. B668(2003) 207 [hep-lat/0302023]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [3]

    Ishikawa, H

    R. Ishikawa, H. Murayama and S. Saito,Truly Confining Supersymmetric Gauge Theories, 2505.11354

    arXiv

  6. [4]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,Nucl. Phys. B557 (1999) 79 [hep-th/9810155]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [5]

    Giudice, M.A

    G.F. Giudice, M.A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi,Gaugino mass without singlets, JHEP12(1998) 027 [hep-ph/9810442]

    arXiv 1998

  8. [6]

    Murayama,Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,Phys

    H. Murayama,Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 251601 [2104.01179]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Acharya and C

    B.S. Acharya and C. Vafa,On domain walls of N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills in four-dimensions,hep-th/0103011

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Delmastro and J

    D. Delmastro and J. Gomis,Domain walls in 4dN= 1 SYM,JHEP03(2021) 259 [2004.11395]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Csáki, A

    C. Csáki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Demonstration of Confinement and Chiral Symmetry Breaking in SO(Nc) Gauge Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 251602 [2106.10288]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Csáki, A

    C. Csáki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Phases of nonsupersymmetric gauge theories: The SO(Nc) case study,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 114018 [2107.02813]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Aharony, N

    O. Aharony, N. Seiberg and Y. Tachikawa,Reading between the lines of four-dimensional gauge theories,JHEP08(2013) 115 [1305.0318]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Wilson,Confinement of quarks,Physical review D10(1974) 2445

    K.G. Wilson,Confinement of quarks,Physical review D10(1974) 2445. – 24 –

    1974

  7. [14]

    Fradkin and S.H

    E. Fradkin and S.H. Shenker,Phase diagrams of lattice gauge theories with higgs fields,Phys. Rev. D19(1979) 3682

    1979

  8. [15]

    Banks and E

    T. Banks and E. Rabinovici,Finite-temperature behavior of the lattice abelian higgs model, Nuclear Physics B160(1979) 349

    1979

  9. [16]

    Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, inRecent developments in gauge theories, pp

    G. Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, inRecent developments in gauge theories, pp. 135–157, Springer (1980)

    1980

  10. [17]

    Csáki and H

    C. Csáki and H. Murayama,Discrete anomaly matching,Nucl. Phys. B515(1998) 114 [hep-th/9710105]

    1998 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Seiberg,Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories, Phys

    N. Seiberg,Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 6857 [hep-th/9402044]

    1994 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Seiberg,Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,Nucl

    N. Seiberg,Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,Nucl. Phys. B435(1995) 129 [hep-th/9411149]

    1995 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Intriligator, R.G

    K.A. Intriligator, R.G. Leigh and N. Seiberg,Exact superpotentials in four-dimensions,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 1092 [hep-th/9403198]

    1994 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Pomarol and R

    A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi,Sparticle masses from the superconformal anomaly,JHEP05 (1999) 013 [hep-ph/9903448]

    1999 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Jack and D.R.T

    I. Jack and D.R.T. Jones,RG invariant solutions for the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters,Phys. Lett. B465(1999) 148 [hep-ph/9907255]

    1999 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Sanford and Y

    D. Sanford and Y. Shirman,Anomaly Mediation from Randall-Sundrum to Dine-Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 125020 [1012.1860]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [24]

    D’Eramo, J

    F. D’Eramo, J. Thaler and Z. Thomas,The Two Faces of Anomaly Mediation,JHEP06 (2012) 151 [1202.1280]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Csáki, A

    C. Csáki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, B. Noether, D.R. Varier and O. Telem,Guide to anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking QCD,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 054015 [2212.03260]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Luzio and L.-X

    A. Luzio and L.-X. Xu,On the derivation of chiral symmetry breaking in QCD-like theories and S-confining theories,JHEP08(2022) 016 [2202.01239]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    de Lima and D

    C.H. de Lima and D. Stolarski,On s-confining SUSY-QCD with anomaly mediation,JHEP 10(2023) 020 [2307.13154]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Veneziano and S

    G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz,An Effective Lagrangian for the Pure N=1 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,Phys. Lett. B113(1982) 231

    1982

  22. [30]

    Davies, T.J

    N. Davies, T.J. Hollowood, V.V. Khoze and M.P. Mattis,Gluino condensate and magnetic monopoles in supersymmetric gluodynamics,Nuclear Physics B559(1999) 123

    1999

  23. [31]

    Intriligator and N

    K.A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg,Duality, monopoles, dyons, confinement and oblique confinement in supersymmetricSO(Nc)gauge theories,Nucl. Phys. B444(1995) 125 [hep-th/9503179]

    1995 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dotti and A.V

    G. Dotti and A.V. Manohar,Supersymmetric gauge theories with an affine quantum moduli space,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 2758 [hep-th/9712010]. – 25 –

    1998 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Csáki, M

    C. Csáki, M. Schmaltz, W. Skiba and J. Terning,Selfdual N=1 SUSY gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 1228 [hep-th/9701191]

    1997 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama,Outer automorphism anomalies,JHEP02 (2022) 094 [2111.04728]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cho and P

    P.L. Cho and P. Kraus,Symplectic SUSY gauge theories with antisymmetric matter,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 7640 [hep-th/9607200]

    1996 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Csáki, W

    C. Csáki, W. Skiba and M. Schmaltz,Exact results and duality for SP(2N) SUSY gauge theories with an antisymmetric tensor,Nucl. Phys. B487(1997) 128 [hep-th/9607210]. – 26 –

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.